USPTO Seeks Comments On Request For Continued Examination (RCE) Practice

The USPTO is seeking public comments on Request for Continued Examination (RCE) practice. In particular, the USPTO is “soliciting public feedback in an effort to better understand the full spectrum of factors that impact the decision to file an RCE.” The USPTO tends to have a negative view of RCEs, so this is an important opportunity to explain how and why RCEs can be a legitimate step in the patent examination process, and how certain USPTO examination practices can contribute to the need for an RCE. The USPTO will consider written comments received by February 4, 2013.

The RCE Backlog

The USPTO no longer can ignore the growing problem of the RCE backlog. As I wrote recently, the inventory of post-RCE applications awaiting examination has been growing steadily, and has reached over 90,000cases. Examination delays for RCE applications also are growing, and the average delay from an RCE to the next Office Action is the highest it has ever been (at 5.6 months as of August 2012) and has been climbing steadily for the past two years. (Anecdotally, it is not unusual for RCEs to experience delays of one year or longer, depending on the technology center and examiner workload.) While the USPTO views the problem in terms of “resources [that are diverted] away from the examination of new applications,” I see the problem in terms of applicants who are being denied timely examination of their applications and grant of their patents.

The USPTO’s Data

The Federal Register Notice includes a link to the USPTO’s RCE Outreach webpage. Linked to this page is a summary of various RCE statistics, “including the fraction of applications (by technology classification) containing at least one RCE, and the fraction of applications (out of a random sample) in which no submission under 37 CFR 1.116 was filed prior to the filing of the RCE.” I find those sets of data interesting.

The USPTO data show that the number of applications with RCEs is relatively uniform across Technology Centers. Those statistics demonstrate that the RCE problem is not limited to specific technologies, and belie the theories that focus on pharmaceutical patents, and that assume that applicants welcome(or even seek) the examination delays that are associated with RCEs.

The USPTO also show that most applicants do not file an after-final response before filing an RCE. The USPTO assumes that 25% of those RCEs may not have been necessary, but applicants who filed RCEs may be familiar with the after-final practices of the examiners, and may have known that their after-final responses would not have been entered. In my practice, I often file an after-final response even if I expect it to not be entered, to avoid receiving another final Office Action as the first Action after the RCE. (I urged the USPTO to abolish the rule that permits such examination churning tactics in this article.)

The Federal Register Notice also states that the USPTO is planning “to conduct roundtables to obtain input from diverse organizations and individuals on RCE practice.”

An Important Opportunity

I am glad that the USPTO is addressing the RCE problem, and encourage all stakeholders to submit written comments and explain why they often need to file RCEs. I hope that the comments balance the USPTO’s negative view of RCEs, and show that RCEs often are required during a normal examination process. I also hope that the USPTO understands that USPTO examination practices contribute to the need for RCEs at least as much as applicant prosecution practices.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.